Looking-Glass Selves: February 2001

">

I want to qualify this post by saying that I am a sociologist of
religion, not a biologist, paleontologist, or physical anthropologist.
Personally, I don't understand why old-earth creationists and many
intelligent design theologians (i.e., those who actually believe that
God is the designer) insist on promoting reductionist views of the
Supreme Being. IMO, this approach, as I said here once before, is both
bad science and bad religion.

First, it is bad science because it ignores the inherent limitations
of science and, in some sense, repeats the scientific colonialism, or
hegemony, of many Enlightenment thinkers and of the positivists
(particularly, Comte), i.e., if we assume that something exists (by
creation or design), then science should be able to detect it. Why?

Second, it is also bad religion. Creationists, and some intelligent
design theologians who believe that the designer is "God" (not some
extraterrestrial), are, in my view, engaging in a form of spiritual
materialism and reductionism. They are, like many of the Enlightenment
thinkers, reducing the divine or religion to what science can observe.
It is not science but scientism.

I have frequently observed that many intelligent design theologians
conflate methodological naturalism (or agnosticism, in T.H. Huxley's
sense of the word) with ontological naturalism (or atheism). Because a
scientist recognizes the operational limitations of science does not
make her or him an atheist.

If God created (or, as I believe, continually creates) the universe,
could He not have done so in such a way that it could be understood
through natural processes alone?

Cheers, Mark A. Foster http://markfoster.net http://evolution.kans.as

Hi, Dayton, You wrote: >>I think it is particularly important to look
at your point that the IDist’s, who incorrectly accuse science of
embracing philosophical naturalism, are in fact the ones who act like
“philosophical Naturalists” as they seek to establish an empirical
basis for all aspects of the world, including our beliefs about God
and morality.<<

Yes, I agree. From a scientific viewpoint, it would be ontological
naturalism. From some religious perspectives, it would be seen as
reductionistic (perhaps even anthropomorphic).

>>It is the IDists themselves who place too great a value, a misplaced
value, on scientific explanations as an ultimate arbiter of truth.<<

Exactly, intelligent design "theology" appears to me to have a love-
hate relationship with the Enlightenment. On the one hand, they
condemn the world views engendered by it. On the other, they are
buying into many of its secularizing assumptions, i.e., the
universalization of the scientific method.

It was a similar mind set which gave birth to many of the so-called
"science" religions, e.g., Science of Mind, Christian Science,
Scientology, Divine Science, Science of Light and Sound (Radhasoami),
the science of prayer, etc.

>>They make the mistake they claim others are making: believing that
one must find empirical explanations for truths which must in fact be
reached in other than scientific ways.<<

Precisely. Personally, I accept that God creates the universe
(emanationism). However, I thoroughly reject all forms of creation
"science" and intelligent design theology.

In my view, "intelligent design" can sometimes be experienced through
ones meditations on the purpose of existence. Using the scientific
method to that end is inappropriate and, as I see it, an empirical
impossibility. Why would a chaotic universe be any less persuasive of
so-called intelligent design than an orderly one - a "Kosmos."

To my understanding, if God created the universe, He did so in such a
way that it could be studied through empirical means.

>>Unfortunately, their reason for adopting this position is not for
genuine theological reasons, even if those reasons are wrong. I
believe the real reason is that they think that if they can
scientifically establish that *some* aspect of the world points to
God, they will be justified in invoking that same God in all sorts of
other areas, even if the areas are moral, aesthetic, spiritual, or
whatever.<<

In my view, the proper places for a religious world view are in the
areas you mention above. Religion is about value, teleology, and
metaphysics. It should not concern itself with exobiology (the Seventh
Day Adventists, the Urantians, and the Raelians), with lost continents
(the Association for Research and Enlightenment, i.e., the Edgar Cayce
group), or with human biological origins (many Christian groups, among
others).

>>To be blunt about it, if we think we can establish that God created
the first cell, or perhaps all species, or what ever, we can move on
to establish that abortion is unequivocably wrong (being contradictory
to the “design” of human)s, or homosexuality, or whatever.<<

Well, regardless of my views on the subjects of homosexuality and
abortion, I do feel that those are among the proper areas of discourse
for religionists.

Science can never determine at what moment the soul connects with a
body (or even if there is a soul). Some Christian groups (the Way)
believe that it does not happen until the baby draws its first
independent breath. Others, of course, argue it occurs at the moment
of conception. This matter is outside the jurisdiction, or
"magisterium," of science. My objection is not to religionists
discussing abortion, but to their marshalling of supposed scientific
evidence for their positions. The soul cannot, IMO, be operationalized
or measured. The pro-life and pro-choice movements are for medical
ethicists, theologians, and religions - not for science.

>>The Discovery Institute wants to renew not just science, but
*culture* - they want to reinvigorate *natural law*, they say.<<

As a radical leftist (not a "liberal" ), I usually disagree
with their prescriptions. However, I support their right to work out
an agenda for this area - so long as they stay clear of science.

>>My point is here is that they are not really making the mistake of
“scientism” - they are *using* this as a tactic to try to insert their
own theistic viewpoint into all aspects of culture.<>To me and my understanding of PLAIN English both are terms denoting
atheism.<<

Ontological naturalists are, by definition, atheists. Methodological
naturalists are not.

Like virtually all scientists (physical, biological, or social), I am
a methodological naturalist. However, I am not an atheist (an
ontological naturalist). As a methodological naturalist, I reject that
science can be used to demonstrate the existence of God. I do not
reject that the existence of God can be demonstrated through other
means.

>>If I understand what your saying, scientist may reject creationism
simply because they are limited in their attempt to disprove.<<

Well, I reject creationism because I am not a biblical literalist.
However, I reject intelligent design (as a scientific approach)
because of the inherent limitations of science. That does not mean
that I reject intelligent design in principle. To me, intelligent
design is shown through prayer and meditation - not through science.
Science cannot, for instance, measure the soul. That is a matter for
the human heart.

>>But the other side of that coin should also be rejected until it can
be disproved.<<

There is as much evidence for evolution (most of it genetic) as there
is for the heliocentric model of the solar system (that the sun, not
the earth, is its center). There is no other side of the coin.
Accepting evolution, however, does not mean that one rejects of God or
the soul. It does imply, a rejection of biblical literalism.

>>But then there would be nothing supernatural about God. How does one
create matter from nothing using a natural process?<<

That is not what I said. I suggested that science does not have the
ability to study that process. I am talking about the limitations of
science - not the limitations of God.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

Name: mfoster Date: 01/24/2001 Time: 10:59:00 PM Category: Subject:
Re: Re: Re: Re: More on Creationism

Jabran,

>>I see no limitation to science in determining intelligent design.
Intelligent design has been found by science, though they refuse to
note it as such. Such things as the placement of the sun, and moon in
relation to the earth is evidence of intelligent design.<<

It could also be argued, though I would not personally want to do so,
that the fact that so few planets appear to be able to support life
demonstrates that life on this planet is simply an accident. It seems
an awful lot of space to waste in the universe, or at least the solar
system, just for one intelligent life form.

However, personally, I see no reason why chaos and order cannot both
be created by God. The assumption of many intelligent design folks is
that order, not chaos, demonstrates the existence of an intelligent
designer (creator).

In my view, whatever exists, whether order or chaos, are created by
God. Therefore, to use one or the other as evidence for design makes
no sense. What we think of, or interpret, as chaos may have some
purpose which only God knows.

>>The human heart cannot fathom anything without some external
evidence, sure you can reason from the heart but the heart needs a
position to start from.<<

Yes, but that position, in my case, is not science.

>>Any evidence for genetic evolution is what is called horizontal
evolution. It is not introduction of something new but simply the
reappearance of characteristics that may have been dormant for
generations.<<

That is not entirely true. Geneticists have observed the development
of new traits, as well. (I used to teach a course at the University of
Virginia, Wise campus, called "human evolution and prehistory.")
However, what some of the intelligent design theorists argue is that
these new traits support only microevolution (species adaptation) -
not macroevolution (transmutation from one species to another).

>>A change in allele frequency over time, is the only definition of
evolution that can be defended and is meaningless as far as a
departure from known form is concerned. Nothing new has ever been
observed to show evolution to a higher or lower form.<<

Again, that is what creationists and some intelligent design
theologians like to say. However, it has been thoroughly refuted by
Dawkins, Gould, etc.

The claims of these pseudoscientists (creationists and intelligent
design folks) are not, and never have been, recognized as legitimate
by the scientific community, since papers written by their proponents
do not measure up sufficient quality to be published in refereed
journals.

For instance, pragmatically, none of the so-called research by these
creationists, etc. has resulted in any major scientific findings. It
has been a complete dead end. It is, to be blunt, simply puffing.

Furthermore, these folks tend to dwell on issues largely irrelevant to
science, such as their claim that the only reason why people accept
evolution is because they are atheists - a claim which can be easily
refuted anyway.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

Name: mfoster Date: 01/26/2001 Time: 02:36:05 AM Category: Subject:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More on Creationism

Jabran,

>>Thats as I was saying, one or even a few instances like this could
be chance, but there are so many things like this that are vital to
life that one can only conclude an intelligent designer.<<

I agree with you that there is an intelligent designer, or Creator.
However, I don't think that this idea should (or legitimately can) be
applied to scientific research. IMO, God created the universe in such
a fashion that it could be understood by empirical (sensible) means
alone.

>>Correct, one cannot exist without the other, God created all things,
he created evil simply because he created good. Light presupposes a
condition of darkness.<<

Yes, but the ID folks focus on order (or, more properly, specified
complexity) as an evidence of design - not chaos. If chaos, order, or
anything in between, could have been created by God, then the entire
set of assumptions underlying intelligent design theory (that
intelligent design can be detected through empirical study) falls
apart.

>>"Traits" can mean many things, a larger nose or even social
attitudes. I dont know that this has anything to do with an arguement
of intelligent design but it is a classic example of creation versus
evolution. The emergence of new or most probably heretofore dormant
traits is an example of the variability within species and at most can
be called microevolution.<<

The distinction between macroevolution and microevolution, made by the
creationists, is mostly a diversion (in my view). The primary
empirical basis for macroevolution is not the fossil record but genes.
It is the genetic evidence, not the fossil record, which provides
incontrovertable evidence.

My guess is that, as the human genome project progresses, the evidence
will continue to pile up.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

Name: mfoster Date: 01/26/2001 Time: 03:00:37 AM Category: Subject:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More on Creationism

Jabran,

>>The refutations are simply denials no scientific proof has ever been
offered.<<

Evolution is the evidence. (By the way, there is no such thing as
scientific proof. Legal proof, yes. Logical proof, yes. Scientific
proof, no. Science develops by disproving, not proving.) In any event,
it is not the business of evolutionists to meet the challenges posed
by pseudoscientists. If intelligent design researchers were able to do
studies of a sufficient quality, they (at least some of them) would
have appeared in refereed journals, and the discussion would take
place in a legitimate academic forum. That is not the case. In fact,
the majority of the "leading" ID folks are Christian lawyers, not
scientists.

>>Thats untrue, one of these pseudoscientists as you call them is
Melvin Cook, Nobel Laureate with a Phd in chemistry has published many
times, as has Steve Austin Phd geology and Robert Gentry has published
so many papers in different scientific journals they would be hard to
count.<<

Yes, but they have not published articles on ID. Again, ID is not
science. It is theology. That is why articles on this subject are not
published.

>>Once it is known that a scientist is a creationist he then becomes
personna non grata and is no longer welcome to publish. Gentry with
many published papers and recognized at one time as the worlds leading
authority on pleochroic haloes has been ostracised to the point that
he can no longer work in the field and any attempt to publish is
rejected.<<

Creationists and ID people like to talk about supposed conspiracies
against them. There is no conspiracy - unless you would call a shared
desire for quality published research a conspiracy.

>>Not true again, all three listed above have and there have been
others.<>That being said let me ask if you know how many scientists of the
hundreds of millions who have lived in the past and present, have had
a major scientific finding?<<

Again, I am not talking about individuals - but about the entire
field.

>>Most creationists think evolution is believed simply because it is
the only thing taught and it permeates every subject taught in public
schools and many religious schools.<<

From a scientific perspective, it is irrelevent what you or I
"believe." (In any event, I do not believe in evolution. I believe in
the Baha'i Faith. I accept evolution as a scientific fact.) What
matters is the consensus of scientists within relevant disciplines
(biology, physical anthropology, and paleontology).

>>Even books on home economics will have bits and pieces of evolution
in them, such as, blue dye is made from indigo, a plant that evolved
millions of years ago.<<

Again, that is irrelevant to the legitimacy of evolution.

>>Atheists are however the main thrust behind evolution, Darwin being
the first.<<

Except that Darwin was not an atheist.

>>Evolution is responsible for much of the worlds evil. The students
are taught that man evolved from animals and as such is just a higher
form of animal. They cannot be condemned for acting like an animal,
that is their legacy.<<

I rarely act like like an animal, have an active prayer and meditative
life, and am a bit of a mystic. Yet, I accept evolution. Likewise, the
Roman Catholic pope accepts the legitimacy of evolution. He seems to
me to be pretty non-animalistic, as well.

Actually, creationism (or something similar) is only accepted by a
tiny fraction of the world's population - being most dominant in the
U.S. and Australia, and the majority of those folks are fundamentalist
Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, and ultra-orthodox Jews.

Does that mean that everyone else acts like an animal? Or that Hindus,
Buddhists, Taoists, Confucianists, Sikhs, Jains, Zoroastrians, etc.
behave in a more animalistic fashion than fundamentalist Christians,
fundamentalist Muslims, or ultra-orthodox Jews?

I honestly do not understand your point. There are many people I would
unhesitatingly call "saints" who accept the legitimacy of evolution.

What you are, IMO, doing is projecting a narrow American
(fundamentalist) christocentrism on the rest of the world - everyone
else who does not subscribe to your beliefs, and alleging that they
are more likely (if I understand you correctly) to act like animals.

Do I understand you correctly?

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

Name: mfoster Date: 01/27/2001 Time: 12:30:41 AM Category: Subject:
Re: More on Creationism

Jabran,

I had written: >>>>Evolution is the evidence.<<<<

You replied: >>Oh now why didnt I think off that. Of course that is
what they call circular reasoning.<<

And intentionally so. Evolution doesn't need to be defended - only
studied. The genetic resemblance of man and other primates, unknown to
Spencer and Darwin, is the primary evidence for evolution - not the
fossil record.

>>You cant say something exists and make it so Mark. What is your
example of evolution?<<

See above.

>>In my opinion your field is pseudoscientism.<<

However, neither your nor my opinion really matters. All that counts,
from a scientific perspective, is that scientists in biology, physical
anthropology, and paleontology consider creationism to be
pseudoscience.

>>I know of one lawyer who has a book out, I know of hundreds of
engineers and scientists.<<

The intelligent design movement is mostly championed by attorneys -
those who have been challenging state statutes which mandate evolution
but not intelligent design. There are a number of scientists who
believe in ID, and the attorneys point to them in making their cases.

>>Do you know who Dean Kenyon is? He has published in peer reviewed
journals and was considered as one of the top biologist in the nation.
He was highly respected as a tenured professor at Berkely, and then.
He wrote the book "Of Pandas and People", suddenly he was no longer
welcome to publish in journals and the call went out to fire him. They
could not as he was tenured but they would not allow him to teach
(they called it infect) students. The crime,,,he said he could not
believe any longer in evolution. He is not a creationists but simply
thinks science should look for other avenues of origin.<<

I am not familiar with this case. However, if a scientist questions a
scientific fact - without providing sufficient evidence (capable of
being published in peer-reviewed journals) - then I can understand why
she or he might provoke the consternation of her or his colleagues.

>>You mean such things a study of the parameters of life sustaining
environments is not scientific?<<

Articles arguing for non-naturalistic causation are, by definition,
not scientific.

>>Immanuel Velikovski was hounded by conspirators to the point they
tried to deny him freedom of speech. Any academic employee who was
caught reading his work was fired, and many were. MacMillan publishing
was threatened with loss of the school book trade for publishing his
work and he was ridiculed in terrible manner. But it turned out he was
right more often than his critics and NASA hired him as a
consultant.<<

Velikovski's historical claims - and he has advanced the idea that the
histories of much of the ancient world need to be rewritten in light
of his catastrophism - have never been accepted as legitimate by
academic historians.

>>Not true again, all three listed above >>That is not irrelevant, it
shows the extent our children are being brainwashed at every
opportunity.<<

Brainwashing is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I have
problems with parents who home-school their children and teach them
creationism or intelligent design.

I wrote: >>>>Except that Darwin was not an atheist.<<<<

You replied: >>Darwin acknowledged that he was. He did not start out
that way but in his words he came to it little by little as he
developed his theory of evolution.<<

Darwin acknowledged, toward the end of his life, that he was an
agnostic (having started out as a theist of sorts) - not an atheist.
He borrowed the term "agnostic" from his "bull," Thomas Henry Huxley.

>>It's high time we quit criminalizing something that is so normal, so
natural, so harmless and so common among animals and recognize that
what we call "sodomy" is really quite natural after all.

>>We're animals. And being animals, we should quit trying to pretend
that we're not. What we call a "crime against nature" isn't unnatural,
and it shouldn't be a crime.

>>The above was taken from an article about the normalcy of sodomy.<<

Huh? How is that evidence that those who believe in evolution are more
likely to be animalistic? I am an evolutionist, and I do not regard
homosexual sodomy as acceptable or ethical. In my view, it is contrary
to God's purpose for humanity.

>>Im not positive but I think all the above groups have a creation
scenario connected with them.<<

That is not true. Buddhists are atheists (do not believe in a
creator). Ditto for Taoists and Confucianists.

>>Creationism has nothing to do with Christ. It merely assumes a
supreme creator. You could assume that zeuss was that creator.<<

Hmmm. I believe in a Creator, and yet I am not a creationist (in the
sense of rejecting evolution). What you wrote is a fundamentalist
Christian fiction. The reason most Christian creationists reject
evolution is because they are biblical literalists - not because
creation and evolution are, by nature, incompatible.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

You wrote: >>Of course there are genetic similarities between
species.... >>Like the great artists, who all have their recognizable
style, the similarity of the genetic code is ‘merely’ God’s
‘fingerprint’.<<

Talking about "God's fingerprint" is an interesting theological idea,
but it is not science. The scientific method is based on empirical,
sensory observation. Since "God" cannot be observed (either by the
unaided or aided human senses), your explanation is, by definition,
not scientific.

Now, from a spiritual standpoint, I believe that God creates the
universe. (Creates, not created. Theologically, I am an
Neoplatonic emanationist.) However, In my view, that creation has been
set up in such a fashion that it can be studied by empirical (usually
naturalistic) means.

What distinguishes my view from intelligent design is that I would
never want to argue that a "designer" could be induced from empirical
observation. Attempting to do so results in a "God of the gaps."
Belief in such a God is, among other things, reductionistic and
scientistic (not to mention sacriligious).

It is reductionistic because God is reduced to what science cannot, at
the present time, explain. It is scientistic, not scientific, in that,
like some of the Enlightenment thinkers, science is raised to a
universal standard of knowledge, i.e., if something is true then
science should be able to detect it.

What I would say is that it is God's purpose (teleology) for creation
and God's ethical guidelines (axiology) which can be detected - not
through empirical observation, but through meditation and prayer.

Arguing for intelligent design (as a supposed scientific theory or
explanation) also presupposes that, if God created (or continuously
creates) the universe, then it should look a certain way. Thus, order
and balance are taken as evidence of design. But why not chaos and
disorder? Who are we to say what form of universe God designs?

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains: markfoster.net
evolution.kans.as

">

Brain,

>>Except for the cloak of religion, such beliefs and actions would
otherwise cause an individual to be judged insane, and committed to an
institution for treatment.<<

Generally speaking, religion improves one's ability to function in the
world. In fact, religion has historically been the major force for
social control, encouraging people to conform to social norms (mores
and folkways) - even if those norms are not always those of the
majority (though they usually are). Insanity, on the other hand,
diminishes one's ability to function in the world.

>>The study of history will further justify the theory that religion
is a form of insanity.<<

You then refer to "bloody religious wars and crusades" and to the
Inquisition.

I would say that religion is sometimes, but not always, a source of
social oppression (not insanity). That is because religion has
frequently represented the interests of the elites. For instance, as
Marx observed, American slave owners would, on occasion, encourage
their slaves to practice religion so that, rather than rebel, they
would be content in their suffering and, in so doing, identify with
the Passion of Christ.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

Brain,

>>It is not those that are actively involved a form of religion that
are harmed most times, it is those who are not that have to live with
feelings of guilt and regret that has been taught to them by
religion.<<

I am afraid that I don't see your point. Aren't you just talking about
conscience?

Generally speaking, religions teach people to do things which most
people would regard as "good" - even if they are not supernaturalists.
(Of course, not all religions are inherently supernaturalistic, e.g.,
Neopaganism, Unitarian-Universalism, and Ethical Culture.) Therefore,
if folks are not behaving in the way they were taught, is it a bad
thing that their consciences will bother them? Moreover, one's
conscience might might be provoked for reasons other than religious
nonconformity.

>>You cannot deny than a majority of the wars and conflicst across the
globe and throughout history can be traced back to some conflict
revolving around religion.<<

The concept of religion is a creation of modernity. It developed as a
result of the (initially) Western tendency to separate the sacred from
the secular (and the profane), i.e., the process of desacralization or
secularization. Most historical societies made little or no
distinction between religion and civil life; and the majority of the
so-called "religious wars" were actually based on factors much broader
than religion (usually economic or territorial).

For instance, does the contemporary conflict between the Catholics and
the Anglicans in Northern Ireland have much to do with theology
(Papists vs. nonpapists)? Were the Crusades primarily about converting
the Muslims to Roman Catholicism? Obviously, what we now call
"religion" played some part. However, it was usually a secondary
consideration.

>>Other interesting facts are that 95% of prison imates in for violent
and non-violent crimes identify themselves with some form of religion,
mostly Christianity. It is interesting that less than 1% of prison
imates across the country identify themselves as athiest or
agnostic.<<

Yes. However, that needs to be looked at in more depth. First, the
percentages you gave are roughly similar to those of the general
population! Second, there does appear to be some correlation between
religious affiliation and crime. However, it is limited in its effect.
For instance, Southern Baptists are more inclined to homicide than
Roman Catholics.

(Likewise Roman Catholics are more likely to develop bipolar
psychosis; Protestants are more likely to commit suicide then either
Roman Catholics or Jews; and Baptists are more likely to become
alcoholics than Episcopalians.)

>>But at the end of the day I guess if it works for you and you are
happy then go for it. However for some of us, religion brings up more
questions than answers.<<

Interesting. However, that is quite a bit different from your earlier
statement that religion is a form of insanity.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

Brain,

>>Well Mark let's just say that I think the world would be a much
better place without religion.<<

It depends on how one defines religion. As a sociologist, I use what
is called a functional definition of religion. (The other common type
of definition is substantive.)

A functional definition of religion is one which looks for a set of
religious functions and then classifies anything which conforms to
them as being a religion.

A substantive (essentialist) definition is one which looks for a
shared religious "essence." The most common one is supernaturalist.
The problem with it is that non-supernaturalist systems (e.g.,
Neopaganism, Unitarian-Universalism, and Ethical Culture), which often
define themselves as "religions," do not get classed as such for
purposes of sociological analysis. Moreover, no matter which essence
one chooses, one is bound to leave some systems out.

The Durkheimian functional definition goes something like this:

A system of beliefs and praxes (practices), focused around the sacred
(that which is extraordinary), which unites people into a moral
community (one which shares similar values and norms).

Durkheim's definition, the most common one used by sociologists,
includes virtually all systems generally regarded as religions (except
personal, nonsocial ideologies, which have little sociological
relevance) plus systems such as Maoism, which also fit the criteria.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

">

I want to qualify this post by saying that I am a sociologist of
religion, not a biologist, paleontologist, or physical anthropologist.
Personally, I don't understand why old-earth creationists and many
intelligent design theologians (i.e., those who actually believe that
God is the designer) insist on promoting reductionist views of the
Supreme Being. IMO, this approach, as I said here once before, is both
bad science and bad religion.

First, it is bad science because it ignores the inherent limitations
of science and, in some sense, repeats the scientific colonialism, or
hegemony, of many Enlightenment thinkers and of the positivists
(particularly, Comte), i.e., if we assume that something exists (by
creation or design), then science should be able to detect it. Why?

Second, it is also bad religion. Creationists, and some intelligent
design theologians who believe that the designer is "God" (not some
extraterrestrial), are, in my view, engaging in a form of spiritual
materialism and reductionism. They are, like many of the Enlightenment
thinkers, reducing the divine or religion to what science can observe.
It is not science but scientism.

I have frequently observed that many intelligent design theologians
conflate methodological naturalism (or agnosticism, in T.H. Huxley's
sense of the word) with ontological naturalism (or atheism). Because a
scientist recognizes the operational limitations of science does not
make her or him an atheist.

If God created (or, as I believe, continually creates) the universe,
could He not have done so in such a way that it could be understood
through natural processes alone?

Cheers, Mark A. Foster http://markfoster.net http://evolution.kans.as

Hi, Dayton, You wrote: >>I think it is particularly important to look
at your point that the IDist’s, who incorrectly accuse science of
embracing philosophical naturalism, are in fact the ones who act like
“philosophical Naturalists” as they seek to establish an empirical
basis for all aspects of the world, including our beliefs about God
and morality.<<

Yes, I agree. From a scientific viewpoint, it would be ontological
naturalism. From some religious perspectives, it would be seen as
reductionistic (perhaps even anthropomorphic).

>>It is the IDists themselves who place too great a value, a misplaced
value, on scientific explanations as an ultimate arbiter of truth.<<

Exactly, intelligent design "theology" appears to me to have a love-
hate relationship with the Enlightenment. On the one hand, they
condemn the world views engendered by it. On the other, they are
buying into many of its secularizing assumptions, i.e., the
universalization of the scientific method.

It was a similar mind set which gave birth to many of the so-called
"science" religions, e.g., Science of Mind, Christian Science,
Scientology, Divine Science, Science of Light and Sound (Radhasoami),
the science of prayer, etc.

>>They make the mistake they claim others are making: believing that
one must find empirical explanations for truths which must in fact be
reached in other than scientific ways.<<

Precisely. Personally, I accept that God creates the universe
(emanationism). However, I thoroughly reject all forms of creation
"science" and intelligent design theology.

In my view, "intelligent design" can sometimes be experienced through
ones meditations on the purpose of existence. Using the scientific
method to that end is inappropriate and, as I see it, an empirical
impossibility. Why would a chaotic universe be any less persuasive of
so-called intelligent design than an orderly one - a "Kosmos."

To my understanding, if God created the universe, He did so in such a
way that it could be studied through empirical means.

>>Unfortunately, their reason for adopting this position is not for
genuine theological reasons, even if those reasons are wrong. I
believe the real reason is that they think that if they can
scientifically establish that *some* aspect of the world points to
God, they will be justified in invoking that same God in all sorts of
other areas, even if the areas are moral, aesthetic, spiritual, or
whatever.<<

In my view, the proper places for a religious world view are in the
areas you mention above. Religion is about value, teleology, and
metaphysics. It should not concern itself with exobiology (the Seventh
Day Adventists, the Urantians, and the Raelians), with lost continents
(the Association for Research and Enlightenment, i.e., the Edgar Cayce
group), or with human biological origins (many Christian groups, among
others).

>>To be blunt about it, if we think we can establish that God created
the first cell, or perhaps all species, or what ever, we can move on
to establish that abortion is unequivocably wrong (being contradictory
to the “design” of human)s, or homosexuality, or whatever.<<

Well, regardless of my views on the subjects of homosexuality and
abortion, I do feel that those are among the proper areas of discourse
for religionists.

Science can never determine at what moment the soul connects with a
body (or even if there is a soul). Some Christian groups (the Way)
believe that it does not happen until the baby draws its first
independent breath. Others, of course, argue it occurs at the moment
of conception. This matter is outside the jurisdiction, or
"magisterium," of science. My objection is not to religionists
discussing abortion, but to their marshalling of supposed scientific
evidence for their positions. The soul cannot, IMO, be operationalized
or measured. The pro-life and pro-choice movements are for medical
ethicists, theologians, and religions - not for science.

>>The Discovery Institute wants to renew not just science, but
*culture* - they want to reinvigorate *natural law*, they say.<<

As a radical leftist (not a "liberal" ), I usually disagree
with their prescriptions. However, I support their right to work out
an agenda for this area - so long as they stay clear of science.

>>My point is here is that they are not really making the mistake of
“scientism” - they are *using* this as a tactic to try to insert their
own theistic viewpoint into all aspects of culture.<>To me and my understanding of PLAIN English both are terms denoting
atheism.<<

Ontological naturalists are, by definition, atheists. Methodological
naturalists are not.

Like virtually all scientists (physical, biological, or social), I am
a methodological naturalist. However, I am not an atheist (an
ontological naturalist). As a methodological naturalist, I reject that
science can be used to demonstrate the existence of God. I do not
reject that the existence of God can be demonstrated through other
means.

>>If I understand what your saying, scientist may reject creationism
simply because they are limited in their attempt to disprove.<<

Well, I reject creationism because I am not a biblical literalist.
However, I reject intelligent design (as a scientific approach)
because of the inherent limitations of science. That does not mean
that I reject intelligent design in principle. To me, intelligent
design is shown through prayer and meditation - not through science.
Science cannot, for instance, measure the soul. That is a matter for
the human heart.

>>But the other side of that coin should also be rejected until it can
be disproved.<<

There is as much evidence for evolution (most of it genetic) as there
is for the heliocentric model of the solar system (that the sun, not
the earth, is its center). There is no other side of the coin.
Accepting evolution, however, does not mean that one rejects of God or
the soul. It does imply, a rejection of biblical literalism.

>>But then there would be nothing supernatural about God. How does one
create matter from nothing using a natural process?<<

That is not what I said. I suggested that science does not have the
ability to study that process. I am talking about the limitations of
science - not the limitations of God.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

Name: mfoster Date: 01/24/2001 Time: 10:59:00 PM Category: Subject:
Re: Re: Re: Re: More on Creationism

Jabran,

>>I see no limitation to science in determining intelligent design.
Intelligent design has been found by science, though they refuse to
note it as such. Such things as the placement of the sun, and moon in
relation to the earth is evidence of intelligent design.<<

It could also be argued, though I would not personally want to do so,
that the fact that so few planets appear to be able to support life
demonstrates that life on this planet is simply an accident. It seems
an awful lot of space to waste in the universe, or at least the solar
system, just for one intelligent life form.

However, personally, I see no reason why chaos and order cannot both
be created by God. The assumption of many intelligent design folks is
that order, not chaos, demonstrates the existence of an intelligent
designer (creator).

In my view, whatever exists, whether order or chaos, are created by
God. Therefore, to use one or the other as evidence for design makes
no sense. What we think of, or interpret, as chaos may have some
purpose which only God knows.

>>The human heart cannot fathom anything without some external
evidence, sure you can reason from the heart but the heart needs a
position to start from.<<

Yes, but that position, in my case, is not science.

>>Any evidence for genetic evolution is what is called horizontal
evolution. It is not introduction of something new but simply the
reappearance of characteristics that may have been dormant for
generations.<<

That is not entirely true. Geneticists have observed the development
of new traits, as well. (I used to teach a course at the University of
Virginia, Wise campus, called "human evolution and prehistory.")
However, what some of the intelligent design theorists argue is that
these new traits support only microevolution (species adaptation) -
not macroevolution (transmutation from one species to another).

>>A change in allele frequency over time, is the only definition of
evolution that can be defended and is meaningless as far as a
departure from known form is concerned. Nothing new has ever been
observed to show evolution to a higher or lower form.<<

Again, that is what creationists and some intelligent design
theologians like to say. However, it has been thoroughly refuted by
Dawkins, Gould, etc.

The claims of these pseudoscientists (creationists and intelligent
design folks) are not, and never have been, recognized as legitimate
by the scientific community, since papers written by their proponents
do not measure up sufficient quality to be published in refereed
journals.

For instance, pragmatically, none of the so-called research by these
creationists, etc. has resulted in any major scientific findings. It
has been a complete dead end. It is, to be blunt, simply puffing.

Furthermore, these folks tend to dwell on issues largely irrelevant to
science, such as their claim that the only reason why people accept
evolution is because they are atheists - a claim which can be easily
refuted anyway.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

Name: mfoster Date: 01/26/2001 Time: 02:36:05 AM Category: Subject:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More on Creationism

Jabran,

>>Thats as I was saying, one or even a few instances like this could
be chance, but there are so many things like this that are vital to
life that one can only conclude an intelligent designer.<<

I agree with you that there is an intelligent designer, or Creator.
However, I don't think that this idea should (or legitimately can) be
applied to scientific research. IMO, God created the universe in such
a fashion that it could be understood by empirical (sensible) means
alone.

>>Correct, one cannot exist without the other, God created all things,
he created evil simply because he created good. Light presupposes a
condition of darkness.<<

Yes, but the ID folks focus on order (or, more properly, specified
complexity) as an evidence of design - not chaos. If chaos, order, or
anything in between, could have been created by God, then the entire
set of assumptions underlying intelligent design theory (that
intelligent design can be detected through empirical study) falls
apart.

>>"Traits" can mean many things, a larger nose or even social
attitudes. I dont know that this has anything to do with an arguement
of intelligent design but it is a classic example of creation versus
evolution. The emergence of new or most probably heretofore dormant
traits is an example of the variability within species and at most can
be called microevolution.<<

The distinction between macroevolution and microevolution, made by the
creationists, is mostly a diversion (in my view). The primary
empirical basis for macroevolution is not the fossil record but genes.
It is the genetic evidence, not the fossil record, which provides
incontrovertable evidence.

My guess is that, as the human genome project progresses, the evidence
will continue to pile up.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

Name: mfoster Date: 01/26/2001 Time: 03:00:37 AM Category: Subject:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More on Creationism

Jabran,

>>The refutations are simply denials no scientific proof has ever been
offered.<<

Evolution is the evidence. (By the way, there is no such thing as
scientific proof. Legal proof, yes. Logical proof, yes. Scientific
proof, no. Science develops by disproving, not proving.) In any event,
it is not the business of evolutionists to meet the challenges posed
by pseudoscientists. If intelligent design researchers were able to do
studies of a sufficient quality, they (at least some of them) would
have appeared in refereed journals, and the discussion would take
place in a legitimate academic forum. That is not the case. In fact,
the majority of the "leading" ID folks are Christian lawyers, not
scientists.

>>Thats untrue, one of these pseudoscientists as you call them is
Melvin Cook, Nobel Laureate with a Phd in chemistry has published many
times, as has Steve Austin Phd geology and Robert Gentry has published
so many papers in different scientific journals they would be hard to
count.<<

Yes, but they have not published articles on ID. Again, ID is not
science. It is theology. That is why articles on this subject are not
published.

>>Once it is known that a scientist is a creationist he then becomes
personna non grata and is no longer welcome to publish. Gentry with
many published papers and recognized at one time as the worlds leading
authority on pleochroic haloes has been ostracised to the point that
he can no longer work in the field and any attempt to publish is
rejected.<<

Creationists and ID people like to talk about supposed conspiracies
against them. There is no conspiracy - unless you would call a shared
desire for quality published research a conspiracy.

>>Not true again, all three listed above have and there have been
others.<>That being said let me ask if you know how many scientists of the
hundreds of millions who have lived in the past and present, have had
a major scientific finding?<<

Again, I am not talking about individuals - but about the entire
field.

>>Most creationists think evolution is believed simply because it is
the only thing taught and it permeates every subject taught in public
schools and many religious schools.<<

From a scientific perspective, it is irrelevent what you or I
"believe." (In any event, I do not believe in evolution. I believe in
the Baha'i Faith. I accept evolution as a scientific fact.) What
matters is the consensus of scientists within relevant disciplines
(biology, physical anthropology, and paleontology).

>>Even books on home economics will have bits and pieces of evolution
in them, such as, blue dye is made from indigo, a plant that evolved
millions of years ago.<<

Again, that is irrelevant to the legitimacy of evolution.

>>Atheists are however the main thrust behind evolution, Darwin being
the first.<<

Except that Darwin was not an atheist.

>>Evolution is responsible for much of the worlds evil. The students
are taught that man evolved from animals and as such is just a higher
form of animal. They cannot be condemned for acting like an animal,
that is their legacy.<<

I rarely act like like an animal, have an active prayer and meditative
life, and am a bit of a mystic. Yet, I accept evolution. Likewise, the
Roman Catholic pope accepts the legitimacy of evolution. He seems to
me to be pretty non-animalistic, as well.

Actually, creationism (or something similar) is only accepted by a
tiny fraction of the world's population - being most dominant in the
U.S. and Australia, and the majority of those folks are fundamentalist
Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, and ultra-orthodox Jews.

Does that mean that everyone else acts like an animal? Or that Hindus,
Buddhists, Taoists, Confucianists, Sikhs, Jains, Zoroastrians, etc.
behave in a more animalistic fashion than fundamentalist Christians,
fundamentalist Muslims, or ultra-orthodox Jews?

I honestly do not understand your point. There are many people I would
unhesitatingly call "saints" who accept the legitimacy of evolution.

What you are, IMO, doing is projecting a narrow American
(fundamentalist) christocentrism on the rest of the world - everyone
else who does not subscribe to your beliefs, and alleging that they
are more likely (if I understand you correctly) to act like animals.

Do I understand you correctly?

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

Name: mfoster Date: 01/27/2001 Time: 12:30:41 AM Category: Subject:
Re: More on Creationism

Jabran,

I had written: >>>>Evolution is the evidence.<<<<

You replied: >>Oh now why didnt I think off that. Of course that is
what they call circular reasoning.<<

And intentionally so. Evolution doesn't need to be defended - only
studied. The genetic resemblance of man and other primates, unknown to
Spencer and Darwin, is the primary evidence for evolution - not the
fossil record.

>>You cant say something exists and make it so Mark. What is your
example of evolution?<<

See above.

>>In my opinion your field is pseudoscientism.<<

However, neither your nor my opinion really matters. All that counts,
from a scientific perspective, is that scientists in biology, physical
anthropology, and paleontology consider creationism to be
pseudoscience.

>>I know of one lawyer who has a book out, I know of hundreds of
engineers and scientists.<<

The intelligent design movement is mostly championed by attorneys -
those who have been challenging state statutes which mandate evolution
but not intelligent design. There are a number of scientists who
believe in ID, and the attorneys point to them in making their cases.

>>Do you know who Dean Kenyon is? He has published in peer reviewed
journals and was considered as one of the top biologist in the nation.
He was highly respected as a tenured professor at Berkely, and then.
He wrote the book "Of Pandas and People", suddenly he was no longer
welcome to publish in journals and the call went out to fire him. They
could not as he was tenured but they would not allow him to teach
(they called it infect) students. The crime,,,he said he could not
believe any longer in evolution. He is not a creationists but simply
thinks science should look for other avenues of origin.<<

I am not familiar with this case. However, if a scientist questions a
scientific fact - without providing sufficient evidence (capable of
being published in peer-reviewed journals) - then I can understand why
she or he might provoke the consternation of her or his colleagues.

>>You mean such things a study of the parameters of life sustaining
environments is not scientific?<<

Articles arguing for non-naturalistic causation are, by definition,
not scientific.

>>Immanuel Velikovski was hounded by conspirators to the point they
tried to deny him freedom of speech. Any academic employee who was
caught reading his work was fired, and many were. MacMillan publishing
was threatened with loss of the school book trade for publishing his
work and he was ridiculed in terrible manner. But it turned out he was
right more often than his critics and NASA hired him as a
consultant.<<

Velikovski's historical claims - and he has advanced the idea that the
histories of much of the ancient world need to be rewritten in light
of his catastrophism - have never been accepted as legitimate by
academic historians.

>>Not true again, all three listed above >>That is not irrelevant, it
shows the extent our children are being brainwashed at every
opportunity.<<

Brainwashing is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I have
problems with parents who home-school their children and teach them
creationism or intelligent design.

I wrote: >>>>Except that Darwin was not an atheist.<<<<

You replied: >>Darwin acknowledged that he was. He did not start out
that way but in his words he came to it little by little as he
developed his theory of evolution.<<

Darwin acknowledged, toward the end of his life, that he was an
agnostic (having started out as a theist of sorts) - not an atheist.
He borrowed the term "agnostic" from his "bull," Thomas Henry Huxley.

>>It's high time we quit criminalizing something that is so normal, so
natural, so harmless and so common among animals and recognize that
what we call "sodomy" is really quite natural after all.

>>We're animals. And being animals, we should quit trying to pretend
that we're not. What we call a "crime against nature" isn't unnatural,
and it shouldn't be a crime.

>>The above was taken from an article about the normalcy of sodomy.<<

Huh? How is that evidence that those who believe in evolution are more
likely to be animalistic? I am an evolutionist, and I do not regard
homosexual sodomy as acceptable or ethical. In my view, it is contrary
to God's purpose for humanity.

>>Im not positive but I think all the above groups have a creation
scenario connected with them.<<

That is not true. Buddhists are atheists (do not believe in a
creator). Ditto for Taoists and Confucianists.

>>Creationism has nothing to do with Christ. It merely assumes a
supreme creator. You could assume that zeuss was that creator.<<

Hmmm. I believe in a Creator, and yet I am not a creationist (in the
sense of rejecting evolution). What you wrote is a fundamentalist
Christian fiction. The reason most Christian creationists reject
evolution is because they are biblical literalists - not because
creation and evolution are, by nature, incompatible.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

You wrote: >>Of course there are genetic similarities between
species.... >>Like the great artists, who all have their recognizable
style, the similarity of the genetic code is ‘merely’ God’s
‘fingerprint’.<<

Talking about "God's fingerprint" is an interesting theological idea,
but it is not science. The scientific method is based on empirical,
sensory observation. Since "God" cannot be observed (either by the
unaided or aided human senses), your explanation is, by definition,
not scientific.

Now, from a spiritual standpoint, I believe that God creates the
universe. (Creates, not created. Theologically, I am an
Neoplatonic emanationist.) However, In my view, that creation has been
set up in such a fashion that it can be studied by empirical (usually
naturalistic) means.

What distinguishes my view from intelligent design is that I would
never want to argue that a "designer" could be induced from empirical
observation. Attempting to do so results in a "God of the gaps."
Belief in such a God is, among other things, reductionistic and
scientistic (not to mention sacriligious).

It is reductionistic because God is reduced to what science cannot, at
the present time, explain. It is scientistic, not scientific, in that,
like some of the Enlightenment thinkers, science is raised to a
universal standard of knowledge, i.e., if something is true then
science should be able to detect it.

What I would say is that it is God's purpose (teleology) for creation
and God's ethical guidelines (axiology) which can be detected - not
through empirical observation, but through meditation and prayer.

Arguing for intelligent design (as a supposed scientific theory or
explanation) also presupposes that, if God created (or continuously
creates) the universe, then it should look a certain way. Thus, order
and balance are taken as evidence of design. But why not chaos and
disorder? Who are we to say what form of universe God designs?

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains: markfoster.net
evolution.kans.as

">

Brain,

>>Except for the cloak of religion, such beliefs and actions would
otherwise cause an individual to be judged insane, and committed to an
institution for treatment.<<

Generally speaking, religion improves one's ability to function in the
world. In fact, religion has historically been the major force for
social control, encouraging people to conform to social norms (mores
and folkways) - even if those norms are not always those of the
majority (though they usually are). Insanity, on the other hand,
diminishes one's ability to function in the world.

>>The study of history will further justify the theory that religion
is a form of insanity.<<

You then refer to "bloody religious wars and crusades" and to the
Inquisition.

I would say that religion is sometimes, but not always, a source of
social oppression (not insanity). That is because religion has
frequently represented the interests of the elites. For instance, as
Marx observed, American slave owners would, on occasion, encourage
their slaves to practice religion so that, rather than rebel, they
would be content in their suffering and, in so doing, identify with
the Passion of Christ.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

Brain,

>>It is not those that are actively involved a form of religion that
are harmed most times, it is those who are not that have to live with
feelings of guilt and regret that has been taught to them by
religion.<<

I am afraid that I don't see your point. Aren't you just talking about
conscience?

Generally speaking, religions teach people to do things which most
people would regard as "good" - even if they are not supernaturalists.
(Of course, not all religions are inherently supernaturalistic, e.g.,
Neopaganism, Unitarian-Universalism, and Ethical Culture.) Therefore,
if folks are not behaving in the way they were taught, is it a bad
thing that their consciences will bother them? Moreover, one's
conscience might might be provoked for reasons other than religious
nonconformity.

>>You cannot deny than a majority of the wars and conflicst across the
globe and throughout history can be traced back to some conflict
revolving around religion.<<

The concept of religion is a creation of modernity. It developed as a
result of the (initially) Western tendency to separate the sacred from
the secular (and the profane), i.e., the process of desacralization or
secularization. Most historical societies made little or no
distinction between religion and civil life; and the majority of the
so-called "religious wars" were actually based on factors much broader
than religion (usually economic or territorial).

For instance, does the contemporary conflict between the Catholics and
the Anglicans in Northern Ireland have much to do with theology
(Papists vs. nonpapists)? Were the Crusades primarily about converting
the Muslims to Roman Catholicism? Obviously, what we now call
"religion" played some part. However, it was usually a secondary
consideration.

>>Other interesting facts are that 95% of prison imates in for violent
and non-violent crimes identify themselves with some form of religion,
mostly Christianity. It is interesting that less than 1% of prison
imates across the country identify themselves as athiest or
agnostic.<<

Yes. However, that needs to be looked at in more depth. First, the
percentages you gave are roughly similar to those of the general
population! Second, there does appear to be some correlation between
religious affiliation and crime. However, it is limited in its effect.
For instance, Southern Baptists are more inclined to homicide than
Roman Catholics.

(Likewise Roman Catholics are more likely to develop bipolar
psychosis; Protestants are more likely to commit suicide then either
Roman Catholics or Jews; and Baptists are more likely to become
alcoholics than Episcopalians.)

>>But at the end of the day I guess if it works for you and you are
happy then go for it. However for some of us, religion brings up more
questions than answers.<<

Interesting. However, that is quite a bit different from your earlier
statement that religion is a form of insanity.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

Brain,

>>Well Mark let's just say that I think the world would be a much
better place without religion.<<

It depends on how one defines religion. As a sociologist, I use what
is called a functional definition of religion. (The other common type
of definition is substantive.)

A functional definition of religion is one which looks for a set of
religious functions and then classifies anything which conforms to
them as being a religion.

A substantive (essentialist) definition is one which looks for a
shared religious "essence." The most common one is supernaturalist.
The problem with it is that non-supernaturalist systems (e.g.,
Neopaganism, Unitarian-Universalism, and Ethical Culture), which often
define themselves as "religions," do not get classed as such for
purposes of sociological analysis. Moreover, no matter which essence
one chooses, one is bound to leave some systems out.

The Durkheimian functional definition goes something like this:

A system of beliefs and praxes (practices), focused around the sacred
(that which is extraordinary), which unites people into a moral
community (one which shares similar values and norms).

Durkheim's definition, the most common one used by sociologists,
includes virtually all systems generally regarded as religions (except
personal, nonsocial ideologies, which have little sociological
relevance) plus systems such as Maoism, which also fit the criteria.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

">

I want to qualify this post by saying that I am a sociologist of
religion, not a biologist, paleontologist, or physical anthropologist.
Personally, I don't understand why old-earth creationists and many
intelligent design theologians (i.e., those who actually believe that
God is the designer) insist on promoting reductionist views of the
Supreme Being. IMO, this approach, as I said here once before, is both
bad science and bad religion.

First, it is bad science because it ignores the inherent limitations
of science and, in some sense, repeats the scientific colonialism, or
hegemony, of many Enlightenment thinkers and of the positivists
(particularly, Comte), i.e., if we assume that something exists (by
creation or design), then science should be able to detect it. Why?

Second, it is also bad religion. Creationists, and some intelligent
design theologians who believe that the designer is "God" (not some
extraterrestrial), are, in my view, engaging in a form of spiritual
materialism and reductionism. They are, like many of the Enlightenment
thinkers, reducing the divine or religion to what science can observe.
It is not science but scientism.

I have frequently observed that many intelligent design theologians
conflate methodological naturalism (or agnosticism, in T.H. Huxley's
sense of the word) with ontological naturalism (or atheism). Because a
scientist recognizes the operational limitations of science does not
make her or him an atheist.

If God created (or, as I believe, continually creates) the universe,
could He not have done so in such a way that it could be understood
through natural processes alone?

Cheers, Mark A. Foster http://markfoster.net http://evolution.kans.as

Hi, Dayton, You wrote: >>I think it is particularly important to look
at your point that the IDist’s, who incorrectly accuse science of
embracing philosophical naturalism, are in fact the ones who act like
“philosophical Naturalists” as they seek to establish an empirical
basis for all aspects of the world, including our beliefs about God
and morality.<<

Yes, I agree. From a scientific viewpoint, it would be ontological
naturalism. From some religious perspectives, it would be seen as
reductionistic (perhaps even anthropomorphic).

>>It is the IDists themselves who place too great a value, a misplaced
value, on scientific explanations as an ultimate arbiter of truth.<<

Exactly, intelligent design "theology" appears to me to have a love-
hate relationship with the Enlightenment. On the one hand, they
condemn the world views engendered by it. On the other, they are
buying into many of its secularizing assumptions, i.e., the
universalization of the scientific method.

It was a similar mind set which gave birth to many of the so-called
"science" religions, e.g., Science of Mind, Christian Science,
Scientology, Divine Science, Science of Light and Sound (Radhasoami),
the science of prayer, etc.

>>They make the mistake they claim others are making: believing that
one must find empirical explanations for truths which must in fact be
reached in other than scientific ways.<<

Precisely. Personally, I accept that God creates the universe
(emanationism). However, I thoroughly reject all forms of creation
"science" and intelligent design theology.

In my view, "intelligent design" can sometimes be experienced through
ones meditations on the purpose of existence. Using the scientific
method to that end is inappropriate and, as I see it, an empirical
impossibility. Why would a chaotic universe be any less persuasive of
so-called intelligent design than an orderly one - a "Kosmos."

To my understanding, if God created the universe, He did so in such a
way that it could be studied through empirical means.

>>Unfortunately, their reason for adopting this position is not for
genuine theological reasons, even if those reasons are wrong. I
believe the real reason is that they think that if they can
scientifically establish that *some* aspect of the world points to
God, they will be justified in invoking that same God in all sorts of
other areas, even if the areas are moral, aesthetic, spiritual, or
whatever.<<

In my view, the proper places for a religious world view are in the
areas you mention above. Religion is about value, teleology, and
metaphysics. It should not concern itself with exobiology (the Seventh
Day Adventists, the Urantians, and the Raelians), with lost continents
(the Association for Research and Enlightenment, i.e., the Edgar Cayce
group), or with human biological origins (many Christian groups, among
others).

>>To be blunt about it, if we think we can establish that God created
the first cell, or perhaps all species, or what ever, we can move on
to establish that abortion is unequivocably wrong (being contradictory
to the “design” of human)s, or homosexuality, or whatever.<<

Well, regardless of my views on the subjects of homosexuality and
abortion, I do feel that those are among the proper areas of discourse
for religionists.

Science can never determine at what moment the soul connects with a
body (or even if there is a soul). Some Christian groups (the Way)
believe that it does not happen until the baby draws its first
independent breath. Others, of course, argue it occurs at the moment
of conception. This matter is outside the jurisdiction, or
"magisterium," of science. My objection is not to religionists
discussing abortion, but to their marshalling of supposed scientific
evidence for their positions. The soul cannot, IMO, be operationalized
or measured. The pro-life and pro-choice movements are for medical
ethicists, theologians, and religions - not for science.

>>The Discovery Institute wants to renew not just science, but
*culture* - they want to reinvigorate *natural law*, they say.<<

As a radical leftist (not a "liberal" ), I usually disagree
with their prescriptions. However, I support their right to work out
an agenda for this area - so long as they stay clear of science.

>>My point is here is that they are not really making the mistake of
“scientism” - they are *using* this as a tactic to try to insert their
own theistic viewpoint into all aspects of culture.<>To me and my understanding of PLAIN English both are terms denoting
atheism.<<

Ontological naturalists are, by definition, atheists. Methodological
naturalists are not.

Like virtually all scientists (physical, biological, or social), I am
a methodological naturalist. However, I am not an atheist (an
ontological naturalist). As a methodological naturalist, I reject that
science can be used to demonstrate the existence of God. I do not
reject that the existence of God can be demonstrated through other
means.

>>If I understand what your saying, scientist may reject creationism
simply because they are limited in their attempt to disprove.<<

Well, I reject creationism because I am not a biblical literalist.
However, I reject intelligent design (as a scientific approach)
because of the inherent limitations of science. That does not mean
that I reject intelligent design in principle. To me, intelligent
design is shown through prayer and meditation - not through science.
Science cannot, for instance, measure the soul. That is a matter for
the human heart.

>>But the other side of that coin should also be rejected until it can
be disproved.<<

There is as much evidence for evolution (most of it genetic) as there
is for the heliocentric model of the solar system (that the sun, not
the earth, is its center). There is no other side of the coin.
Accepting evolution, however, does not mean that one rejects of God or
the soul. It does imply, a rejection of biblical literalism.

>>But then there would be nothing supernatural about God. How does one
create matter from nothing using a natural process?<<

That is not what I said. I suggested that science does not have the
ability to study that process. I am talking about the limitations of
science - not the limitations of God.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

Name: mfoster Date: 01/24/2001 Time: 10:59:00 PM Category: Subject:
Re: Re: Re: Re: More on Creationism

Jabran,

>>I see no limitation to science in determining intelligent design.
Intelligent design has been found by science, though they refuse to
note it as such. Such things as the placement of the sun, and moon in
relation to the earth is evidence of intelligent design.<<

It could also be argued, though I would not personally want to do so,
that the fact that so few planets appear to be able to support life
demonstrates that life on this planet is simply an accident. It seems
an awful lot of space to waste in the universe, or at least the solar
system, just for one intelligent life form.

However, personally, I see no reason why chaos and order cannot both
be created by God. The assumption of many intelligent design folks is
that order, not chaos, demonstrates the existence of an intelligent
designer (creator).

In my view, whatever exists, whether order or chaos, are created by
God. Therefore, to use one or the other as evidence for design makes
no sense. What we think of, or interpret, as chaos may have some
purpose which only God knows.

>>The human heart cannot fathom anything without some external
evidence, sure you can reason from the heart but the heart needs a
position to start from.<<

Yes, but that position, in my case, is not science.

>>Any evidence for genetic evolution is what is called horizontal
evolution. It is not introduction of something new but simply the
reappearance of characteristics that may have been dormant for
generations.<<

That is not entirely true. Geneticists have observed the development
of new traits, as well. (I used to teach a course at the University of
Virginia, Wise campus, called "human evolution and prehistory.")
However, what some of the intelligent design theorists argue is that
these new traits support only microevolution (species adaptation) -
not macroevolution (transmutation from one species to another).

>>A change in allele frequency over time, is the only definition of
evolution that can be defended and is meaningless as far as a
departure from known form is concerned. Nothing new has ever been
observed to show evolution to a higher or lower form.<<

Again, that is what creationists and some intelligent design
theologians like to say. However, it has been thoroughly refuted by
Dawkins, Gould, etc.

The claims of these pseudoscientists (creationists and intelligent
design folks) are not, and never have been, recognized as legitimate
by the scientific community, since papers written by their proponents
do not measure up sufficient quality to be published in refereed
journals.

For instance, pragmatically, none of the so-called research by these
creationists, etc. has resulted in any major scientific findings. It
has been a complete dead end. It is, to be blunt, simply puffing.

Furthermore, these folks tend to dwell on issues largely irrelevant to
science, such as their claim that the only reason why people accept
evolution is because they are atheists - a claim which can be easily
refuted anyway.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

Name: mfoster Date: 01/26/2001 Time: 02:36:05 AM Category: Subject:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More on Creationism

Jabran,

>>Thats as I was saying, one or even a few instances like this could
be chance, but there are so many things like this that are vital to
life that one can only conclude an intelligent designer.<<

I agree with you that there is an intelligent designer, or Creator.
However, I don't think that this idea should (or legitimately can) be
applied to scientific research. IMO, God created the universe in such
a fashion that it could be understood by empirical (sensible) means
alone.

>>Correct, one cannot exist without the other, God created all things,
he created evil simply because he created good. Light presupposes a
condition of darkness.<<

Yes, but the ID folks focus on order (or, more properly, specified
complexity) as an evidence of design - not chaos. If chaos, order, or
anything in between, could have been created by God, then the entire
set of assumptions underlying intelligent design theory (that
intelligent design can be detected through empirical study) falls
apart.

>>"Traits" can mean many things, a larger nose or even social
attitudes. I dont know that this has anything to do with an arguement
of intelligent design but it is a classic example of creation versus
evolution. The emergence of new or most probably heretofore dormant
traits is an example of the variability within species and at most can
be called microevolution.<<

The distinction between macroevolution and microevolution, made by the
creationists, is mostly a diversion (in my view). The primary
empirical basis for macroevolution is not the fossil record but genes.
It is the genetic evidence, not the fossil record, which provides
incontrovertable evidence.

My guess is that, as the human genome project progresses, the evidence
will continue to pile up.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

Name: mfoster Date: 01/26/2001 Time: 03:00:37 AM Category: Subject:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More on Creationism

Jabran,

>>The refutations are simply denials no scientific proof has ever been
offered.<<

Evolution is the evidence. (By the way, there is no such thing as
scientific proof. Legal proof, yes. Logical proof, yes. Scientific
proof, no. Science develops by disproving, not proving.) In any event,
it is not the business of evolutionists to meet the challenges posed
by pseudoscientists. If intelligent design researchers were able to do
studies of a sufficient quality, they (at least some of them) would
have appeared in refereed journals, and the discussion would take
place in a legitimate academic forum. That is not the case. In fact,
the majority of the "leading" ID folks are Christian lawyers, not
scientists.

>>Thats untrue, one of these pseudoscientists as you call them is
Melvin Cook, Nobel Laureate with a Phd in chemistry has published many
times, as has Steve Austin Phd geology and Robert Gentry has published
so many papers in different scientific journals they would be hard to
count.<<

Yes, but they have not published articles on ID. Again, ID is not
science. It is theology. That is why articles on this subject are not
published.

>>Once it is known that a scientist is a creationist he then becomes
personna non grata and is no longer welcome to publish. Gentry with
many published papers and recognized at one time as the worlds leading
authority on pleochroic haloes has been ostracised to the point that
he can no longer work in the field and any attempt to publish is
rejected.<<

Creationists and ID people like to talk about supposed conspiracies
against them. There is no conspiracy - unless you would call a shared
desire for quality published research a conspiracy.

>>Not true again, all three listed above have and there have been
others.<>That being said let me ask if you know how many scientists of the
hundreds of millions who have lived in the past and present, have had
a major scientific finding?<<

Again, I am not talking about individuals - but about the entire
field.

>>Most creationists think evolution is believed simply because it is
the only thing taught and it permeates every subject taught in public
schools and many religious schools.<<

From a scientific perspective, it is irrelevent what you or I
"believe." (In any event, I do not believe in evolution. I believe in
the Baha'i Faith. I accept evolution as a scientific fact.) What
matters is the consensus of scientists within relevant disciplines
(biology, physical anthropology, and paleontology).

>>Even books on home economics will have bits and pieces of evolution
in them, such as, blue dye is made from indigo, a plant that evolved
millions of years ago.<<

Again, that is irrelevant to the legitimacy of evolution.

>>Atheists are however the main thrust behind evolution, Darwin being
the first.<<

Except that Darwin was not an atheist.

>>Evolution is responsible for much of the worlds evil. The students
are taught that man evolved from animals and as such is just a higher
form of animal. They cannot be condemned for acting like an animal,
that is their legacy.<<

I rarely act like like an animal, have an active prayer and meditative
life, and am a bit of a mystic. Yet, I accept evolution. Likewise, the
Roman Catholic pope accepts the legitimacy of evolution. He seems to
me to be pretty non-animalistic, as well.

Actually, creationism (or something similar) is only accepted by a
tiny fraction of the world's population - being most dominant in the
U.S. and Australia, and the majority of those folks are fundamentalist
Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, and ultra-orthodox Jews.

Does that mean that everyone else acts like an animal? Or that Hindus,
Buddhists, Taoists, Confucianists, Sikhs, Jains, Zoroastrians, etc.
behave in a more animalistic fashion than fundamentalist Christians,
fundamentalist Muslims, or ultra-orthodox Jews?

I honestly do not understand your point. There are many people I would
unhesitatingly call "saints" who accept the legitimacy of evolution.

What you are, IMO, doing is projecting a narrow American
(fundamentalist) christocentrism on the rest of the world - everyone
else who does not subscribe to your beliefs, and alleging that they
are more likely (if I understand you correctly) to act like animals.

Do I understand you correctly?

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

Name: mfoster Date: 01/27/2001 Time: 12:30:41 AM Category: Subject:
Re: More on Creationism

Jabran,

I had written: >>>>Evolution is the evidence.<<<<

You replied: >>Oh now why didnt I think off that. Of course that is
what they call circular reasoning.<<

And intentionally so. Evolution doesn't need to be defended - only
studied. The genetic resemblance of man and other primates, unknown to
Spencer and Darwin, is the primary evidence for evolution - not the
fossil record.

>>You cant say something exists and make it so Mark. What is your
example of evolution?<<

See above.

>>In my opinion your field is pseudoscientism.<<

However, neither your nor my opinion really matters. All that counts,
from a scientific perspective, is that scientists in biology, physical
anthropology, and paleontology consider creationism to be
pseudoscience.

>>I know of one lawyer who has a book out, I know of hundreds of
engineers and scientists.<<

The intelligent design movement is mostly championed by attorneys -
those who have been challenging state statutes which mandate evolution
but not intelligent design. There are a number of scientists who
believe in ID, and the attorneys point to them in making their cases.

>>Do you know who Dean Kenyon is? He has published in peer reviewed
journals and was considered as one of the top biologist in the nation.
He was highly respected as a tenured professor at Berkely, and then.
He wrote the book "Of Pandas and People", suddenly he was no longer
welcome to publish in journals and the call went out to fire him. They
could not as he was tenured but they would not allow him to teach
(they called it infect) students. The crime,,,he said he could not
believe any longer in evolution. He is not a creationists but simply
thinks science should look for other avenues of origin.<<

I am not familiar with this case. However, if a scientist questions a
scientific fact - without providing sufficient evidence (capable of
being published in peer-reviewed journals) - then I can understand why
she or he might provoke the consternation of her or his colleagues.

>>You mean such things a study of the parameters of life sustaining
environments is not scientific?<<

Articles arguing for non-naturalistic causation are, by definition,
not scientific.

>>Immanuel Velikovski was hounded by conspirators to the point they
tried to deny him freedom of speech. Any academic employee who was
caught reading his work was fired, and many were. MacMillan publishing
was threatened with loss of the school book trade for publishing his
work and he was ridiculed in terrible manner. But it turned out he was
right more often than his critics and NASA hired him as a
consultant.<<

Velikovski's historical claims - and he has advanced the idea that the
histories of much of the ancient world need to be rewritten in light
of his catastrophism - have never been accepted as legitimate by
academic historians.

>>Not true again, all three listed above >>That is not irrelevant, it
shows the extent our children are being brainwashed at every
opportunity.<<

Brainwashing is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I have
problems with parents who home-school their children and teach them
creationism or intelligent design.

I wrote: >>>>Except that Darwin was not an atheist.<<<<

You replied: >>Darwin acknowledged that he was. He did not start out
that way but in his words he came to it little by little as he
developed his theory of evolution.<<

Darwin acknowledged, toward the end of his life, that he was an
agnostic (having started out as a theist of sorts) - not an atheist.
He borrowed the term "agnostic" from his "bull," Thomas Henry Huxley.

>>It's high time we quit criminalizing something that is so normal, so
natural, so harmless and so common among animals and recognize that
what we call "sodomy" is really quite natural after all.

>>We're animals. And being animals, we should quit trying to pretend
that we're not. What we call a "crime against nature" isn't unnatural,
and it shouldn't be a crime.

>>The above was taken from an article about the normalcy of sodomy.<<

Huh? How is that evidence that those who believe in evolution are more
likely to be animalistic? I am an evolutionist, and I do not regard
homosexual sodomy as acceptable or ethical. In my view, it is contrary
to God's purpose for humanity.

>>Im not positive but I think all the above groups have a creation
scenario connected with them.<<

That is not true. Buddhists are atheists (do not believe in a
creator). Ditto for Taoists and Confucianists.

>>Creationism has nothing to do with Christ. It merely assumes a
supreme creator. You could assume that zeuss was that creator.<<

Hmmm. I believe in a Creator, and yet I am not a creationist (in the
sense of rejecting evolution). What you wrote is a fundamentalist
Christian fiction. The reason most Christian creationists reject
evolution is because they are biblical literalists - not because
creation and evolution are, by nature, incompatible.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

You wrote: >>Of course there are genetic similarities between
species.... >>Like the great artists, who all have their recognizable
style, the similarity of the genetic code is ‘merely’ God’s
‘fingerprint’.<<

Talking about "God's fingerprint" is an interesting theological idea,
but it is not science. The scientific method is based on empirical,
sensory observation. Since "God" cannot be observed (either by the
unaided or aided human senses), your explanation is, by definition,
not scientific.

Now, from a spiritual standpoint, I believe that God creates the
universe. (Creates, not created. Theologically, I am an
Neoplatonic emanationist.) However, In my view, that creation has been
set up in such a fashion that it can be studied by empirical (usually
naturalistic) means.

What distinguishes my view from intelligent design is that I would
never want to argue that a "designer" could be induced from empirical
observation. Attempting to do so results in a "God of the gaps."
Belief in such a God is, among other things, reductionistic and
scientistic (not to mention sacriligious).

It is reductionistic because God is reduced to what science cannot, at
the present time, explain. It is scientistic, not scientific, in that,
like some of the Enlightenment thinkers, science is raised to a
universal standard of knowledge, i.e., if something is true then
science should be able to detect it.

What I would say is that it is God's purpose (teleology) for creation
and God's ethical guidelines (axiology) which can be detected - not
through empirical observation, but through meditation and prayer.

Arguing for intelligent design (as a supposed scientific theory or
explanation) also presupposes that, if God created (or continuously
creates) the universe, then it should look a certain way. Thus, order
and balance are taken as evidence of design. But why not chaos and
disorder? Who are we to say what form of universe God designs?

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains: markfoster.net
evolution.kans.as

">

Brain,

>>Except for the cloak of religion, such beliefs and actions would
otherwise cause an individual to be judged insane, and committed to an
institution for treatment.<<

Generally speaking, religion improves one's ability to function in the
world. In fact, religion has historically been the major force for
social control, encouraging people to conform to social norms (mores
and folkways) - even if those norms are not always those of the
majority (though they usually are). Insanity, on the other hand,
diminishes one's ability to function in the world.

>>The study of history will further justify the theory that religion
is a form of insanity.<<

You then refer to "bloody religious wars and crusades" and to the
Inquisition.

I would say that religion is sometimes, but not always, a source of
social oppression (not insanity). That is because religion has
frequently represented the interests of the elites. For instance, as
Marx observed, American slave owners would, on occasion, encourage
their slaves to practice religion so that, rather than rebel, they
would be content in their suffering and, in so doing, identify with
the Passion of Christ.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

Brain,

>>It is not those that are actively involved a form of religion that
are harmed most times, it is those who are not that have to live with
feelings of guilt and regret that has been taught to them by
religion.<<

I am afraid that I don't see your point. Aren't you just talking about
conscience?

Generally speaking, religions teach people to do things which most
people would regard as "good" - even if they are not supernaturalists.
(Of course, not all religions are inherently supernaturalistic, e.g.,
Neopaganism, Unitarian-Universalism, and Ethical Culture.) Therefore,
if folks are not behaving in the way they were taught, is it a bad
thing that their consciences will bother them? Moreover, one's
conscience might might be provoked for reasons other than religious
nonconformity.

>>You cannot deny than a majority of the wars and conflicst across the
globe and throughout history can be traced back to some conflict
revolving around religion.<<

The concept of religion is a creation of modernity. It developed as a
result of the (initially) Western tendency to separate the sacred from
the secular (and the profane), i.e., the process of desacralization or
secularization. Most historical societies made little or no
distinction between religion and civil life; and the majority of the
so-called "religious wars" were actually based on factors much broader
than religion (usually economic or territorial).

For instance, does the contemporary conflict between the Catholics and
the Anglicans in Northern Ireland have much to do with theology
(Papists vs. nonpapists)? Were the Crusades primarily about converting
the Muslims to Roman Catholicism? Obviously, what we now call
"religion" played some part. However, it was usually a secondary
consideration.

>>Other interesting facts are that 95% of prison imates in for violent
and non-violent crimes identify themselves with some form of religion,
mostly Christianity. It is interesting that less than 1% of prison
imates across the country identify themselves as athiest or
agnostic.<<

Yes. However, that needs to be looked at in more depth. First, the
percentages you gave are roughly similar to those of the general
population! Second, there does appear to be some correlation between
religious affiliation and crime. However, it is limited in its effect.
For instance, Southern Baptists are more inclined to homicide than
Roman Catholics.

(Likewise Roman Catholics are more likely to develop bipolar
psychosis; Protestants are more likely to commit suicide then either
Roman Catholics or Jews; and Baptists are more likely to become
alcoholics than Episcopalians.)

>>But at the end of the day I guess if it works for you and you are
happy then go for it. However for some of us, religion brings up more
questions than answers.<<

Interesting. However, that is quite a bit different from your earlier
statement that religion is a form of insanity.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

Brain,

>>Well Mark let's just say that I think the world would be a much
better place without religion.<<

It depends on how one defines religion. As a sociologist, I use what
is called a functional definition of religion. (The other common type
of definition is substantive.)

A functional definition of religion is one which looks for a set of
religious functions and then classifies anything which conforms to
them as being a religion.

A substantive (essentialist) definition is one which looks for a
shared religious "essence." The most common one is supernaturalist.
The problem with it is that non-supernaturalist systems (e.g.,
Neopaganism, Unitarian-Universalism, and Ethical Culture), which often
define themselves as "religions," do not get classed as such for
purposes of sociological analysis. Moreover, no matter which essence
one chooses, one is bound to leave some systems out.

The Durkheimian functional definition goes something like this:

A system of beliefs and praxes (practices), focused around the sacred
(that which is extraordinary), which unites people into a moral
community (one which shares similar values and norms).

Durkheim's definition, the most common one used by sociologists,
includes virtually all systems generally regarded as religions (except
personal, nonsocial ideologies, which have little sociological
relevance) plus systems such as Maoism, which also fit the criteria.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

Sunday, February 11, 2001

About Me

Links

Previous Posts

Archives

Twitter Updates